Tilghman v. Proctor Proctor v. Tilghman
Decision Date | 19 March 1888 |
Citation | 8 S.Ct. 894,125 U.S. 136,31 L.Ed. 664 |
Parties | TILGHMAN v. PROCTOR et al . PROCTOR et al. v. TILGHMAN |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
This was a bill in equity by Richard A. Tilghman against William Proctor, James Gamble, W. A. Proctor, James N. Gamble, and George H. Proctor, copartners under the name of Proctor & Gamble, praying for an injunction, for an account of profits, and for damages, for the infringement of letters patent for the process of manufacturing fat acids and glycerine from fatty bodies by the action of water at a high temperature and pressure. From the decree awarding plaintiff the amount of damages reported by the master both parties appeal.
Geo. Harding and F. T. Chambers, for Tilghman.
Wm. M. Ramsey and R. H. Parkinson, for Proctor et al.
This was a bill in equity, filed June 26, 1874, by Richard A. Tilghman against William Proctor and four others, copartners under the name of Proctor & Gamble, praying for an injunction, for an account of profits, and for damages, for the infringement of letters patent, originally granted to Tilghman for 14 years from January 9, 1854, and afterwards extended to January 9, 1875, for the process of manufacturing fat acids and glycerine from fatty bodies by the action of water at a high temperature and pressure. The infringement complained of in this suit was from May 1, 1870, to January 8, 1875. Similar suits by this plaintiff against other defendants had been mamtained by the circuit courts for the southern districts of Ohio and of New York in 1862 and 1864 respectively. Tilghman v. Werk, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 229; Tilghman v. Mitchell, Id. 518. In the suit in New York, a final decree for an account of profits was entered by the circuit court on September 1, 1871. Tilghman v. Mitchell, 9 Blatchf. 1, 18, 4 Fish. Pat. Ca. 599,615. On March 2, 1874, that decree was reversed in this court by the opinion of four justices against three, two judges not sitting, upon the hypothesis that Tilghman's patent was limited to the apparatus therein described, and that the use of an apparatus similar to that used by the present defendants was not an infringement. Mitchell v. Tilghman, 19 Wall. 287-419. In the case at bar the circuit court, on December 2, 1874, following the decision of this court in Mitchell v. Tilghman, made a decree dismissing the bill. But, on appeal from that decree, this court, at October term, 1880, by a unanimous opinion, overruled its decision in Mitchell v. Tilghman, and adjudged that Tilghman's patent was a valid one for a process, and not merely for the particular apparatus described in the specification; that that apparatus could be operated to produce a beneficial result; that the defendants had infringed the plaintiff's patent; and therefore, that the decree of the circuit court be reversed, and the case remanded, with directions to enter a decree for the plaintiff in conformity with that opinion. Tilghman v. Proctor, 102 U. S. 707. There is nothing in the record before us to induce any change or modification of the conclusions then announced.
By making a few extracts from that opinion, the questions now before us will be the better understood: 102 U. S. 708, 709. The substance of Tilghman's discovery and invention was thus summed up by the court: Pages 712, 713. The court spoke of the different forms of apparatus, men- tioned in Tilghman's patent, or used by the defendants, as follows: 'The apparatus described' in the patent Pages 718, 719. Pages 719, 720.
'The defendants use a boiler in which the charge of fat and other materials is placed and heated; and do not mix the fat and water in the manner pointed out in the specification of the patent, but, on the contrary, have inserted in the boiler a pump which forces the water, as it settles to the bottom, upwards to the top of the mass, and pours it upon the upper surface, whence it again finds its way down through the fat, thus keeping up a constant mixture.' Page 730. It was expressly decided that neither the form of the defendants' apparatus, nor the addition of lime, nor the use of steam, nor the applying of a lower degree of heat, prevented their process from being an infringement of the plaintiff's patent. Pages 730-733. The court also said: Page 730.
In accordance with the judgment and mandate of this court, the circuit court, in February, 1877, entered an interlocutory decree for the plaintiff, and referred the case to a master 'to ascertain and tax and state and report to the court an account of the gains, profits, savings, and advantages which the said defendants have received, or which have arisen or accrued to them, from infringing the said exclusive rights of the said complainant by the use f the process patented in the said letters patent, as well as the damages the said complainant has sustained thereby.' The master filed his report in August, 1884. As to...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Westinghouse Electric & Mfg. Co. v. Wagner Electric & Mfg. Co.
... ... only to nominal damages. In Tilghman v. Proctor, 125 ... U.S. 136, 8 Sup.Ct. 894, 31 L.Ed. 664, the court, in ... ...
-
National Hollow Brake-Beam Co. v. Interchangeable Brake-Beam Co.
... ... 51, 53, 29 C.C.A ... 547, 549, 57 U.S.App. 634, 637; Tilghman v. Proctor, ... 125 U.S. 136, 8 Sup.Ct. 894, 31 L.Ed. 664; ... [106 F ... ...
-
Chauncey v. Dyke Bros.
... ... that there was an error or mistake upon his part ... Tilghman v. Procter, 125 U.S. 136, 149, 8 Sup.Ct ... 894, 31 L.Ed. 664; ... ...
-
State of Iowa v. Carr
... ... Arms, 129 U.S. 512, 9 Sup.Ct. 355, 32 ... L.Ed. 764; Tilghman v. Proctor, 125 U.S. 136, 8 ... Sup.Ct. 894, 31 L.Ed. 664; Furrer v ... ...
-
Disgorgement's Role In SEC Enforcement Actions: An Analysis Of The Supreme Court's Decision In Liu V. SEC
...395, 398 (1946)). 19 Id. at 6. 20 Id. (quoting Root v. Railway Co., 105 U. S. 189, 207 (1882)). 21 Id. at 7 (quoting Tilghman v. Proctor, 125 U. S. 136, 145-146 22 Id. at 12. 23 Id. at 14 (quoting 15 U.S.C. ' 78u(d)(5)). 24 Id. at 16. 25 Id. at 17. 26 Id. at 17-18. 27 Id. at 18. 28 Id. at 1......
-
All's Fair In Crime And Disgorgement: Supreme Court Upholds SEC's Authority To Disgorge Ill-Gotten Gains With Limitations
...(Thomas, J., dissenting). 18 Id., at 2. 19 Id. (citing Root v. Railway Co., 105 U.S. 189, 207 (1881)). 20 Id. (citing Tilghman v. Proctor, 125 U.S. 136, 145-46 21 Id., at 12, 14. 22 Liu, No. 18-1501 slip op., at 14. 23 Id., at 19. 24 Id., at 14 (emphasis added). 25 Id., at 14. 26 Id., at 17......
-
HOW FEDERAL AGENCIES SUE ON VICTIMS' BEHALF: PARENS PATRIAE, EQUITABLE REMEDIES, AND PROCEDURES.
...256 (1993)). (105) Id. at 1941, 1943 (first quoting Marshall v. Vicksburg, 15 Wall. 146, 149 (1873); and then quoting Tilghman v. Proctor, 125 U.S. 136, 146 (106) Id. at 1942. (107) See id. at 1942-44. (108) Id. at 1944-46 (quoting Root v. Lake Shore & M.S. Ry. Co., 105 U.S. 189, 203 (1......
-
Past the Tipping Point: Reforming the Role of Willfulness in the Federal Circuit's Doctrine of Enhanced Damages for Patent Infringement
...(citing Birdsall v. Coolidge, 93 U.S. 64, 68-69 (1876)). 36 Id. 37 Id. (quoting Birdsall, 93 U.S. at 69). 38 See Tilghman v. Proctor, 125 U.S. 136, 148-49 (1886) (noting that the Patent Act of 1870 "authorizes the court sitting in equity to award and to treble any damages that the plaintiff......